Dem Rep. Jim Himes tells "MAGA" they better think twice about supporting strikes on drug traffickers because they "need to imagine who gets killed ...

[Couchpotato]

Not sure they would have any say? Its between congress and the WH, isn't it?
Pretty sure the GOP House would green light Trump's war on the drug cartels.

They would rule on the Constitutionality of the law. Like any other law in dispute.

 

[Couchpotato]

It seems pretty unlikely that Trump would court martial soldiers for obeying his orders.

Don’t you think?

Oh I didn’t realize we were operating in your little fantasy world.

 

[Marener]

Oh I didn’t realize we were operating in your little fantasy world.

Are you incapable of discussing hypothetical situations?

Abstract thought is hard for some.

The point here is that individual officers or soldiers are not going to experience any adverse consequences for following Trump’s orders. Moreover, it’s a bit much for enlisted soldiers to be able to have the legal acumen to know whether their orders are legal in all situations.

We really don’t know the legal justification for these strikes. That’s pretty ******* crazy.

 

[struth]

Enemy combatants don’t have constitutional rights.

Who determines if a US citizen is an enemy combatant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure they would have any say? Its between congress and the WH, isn't it?
Pretty sure the GOP House would green light Trump's war on the drug cartels.

The WPA is a law; anyone with standing can challenge a law in court.
The President whose Article II powers are restricted by the WPA has standing.

Congress cannot deny the President a power given to him directly by the constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would they file a trip plan? The trajectory was clear.... They fully intended to violate international rules of travel. And of course if they're smuggling they're not going to file a trip plan with anybody.

Why should they have to file a trip plan to enjoy their boats in international waters near their home country.

Now, if these boats were in US territorial waters, refused to yeild to the Coast Guard, then you MIGHT have a point.

 

[justoffal]

Why should they have to file a trip plan to enjoy their boats in international waters near their home country.

Now, if these boats were in US territorial waters, refused to yeild to the Coast Guard, then you MIGHT have a point.

All boat Traffic that ventures out into international waters is supposed to declare. Not doing so is not only stupid it's a dead giveaway....

These smuggling lanes are decades old and well established.

That Doesn't make the process perfect I'm sure...

Does it make it about 99 percent accurate?
Yes.

These guys are probably watched by satellite from dock to dock....telling Congress would be the same as telling the smugglers.

I will say that I would like to see some evidence aside from just being told. However if the military is surveilling them they most likely have the goods.

There are hundreds of boats in those areas all the time...yet these are the ones getting smoked.

 

[JoeB131]

All boat Traffic that ventures out into international waters is supposed to declare. Not doing so is not only stupid it's a dead giveaway....

Where is that a requirement?

These guys are probably watched by satellite from dock to dock....telling Congress would be the same as telling the smugglers.

I will say that I would like to see some evidence aside from just being told. However if the military is surveilling them they most likely have the goods.

There are hundreds of boats in those areas all the time...yet these are the ones getting smoked.

Um, here's the thing. If the military was survelling them, they should have evidence, such as, "Here's satellite photos of drugs being loaded on the boat", or "here's our intelligence that Paco is a member of a drug cartel, and he owned the boat."

Instead, all we have is them blowing up random boats off the coast of Venezuela and claiming they are killing drug smugglers who were nowhere near the US coast.

 

[konradv]

Who determines if a US citizen is an enemy combatant?

If you’re in a war zone embedded with the enemy, it seems obvious.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

If a nation dusted a boat full of Americans on mere suspicion of illegal activity, you guys would be singing a different tune.

Depends on the crime

 

[struth]

If you’re in a war zone embedded with the enemy, it seems obvious.

To who? Who makes the call?

What if they are hostages?

 

[konradv]

To who? Who makes the call?

What if they are hostages?

The Cic makes the call. Intelligence should know the particulars.

In the Venezuela situation I could say, “where are the drugs?”

 

[struth]

The Cic makes the call. Intelligence should know the particulars.

In the Venezuela situation I could say, “where are the drugs?”

Nice so president trump can unilaterally decided who to kill

Why does there have to be drugs? There were no drugs on the 16 year old American boy that Obama killed, and he was American

 

[konradv]

Nice so president trump can unilaterally decided who to kill

Why does there have to be drugs? There were no drugs on the 16 year old American boy that Obama killed, and he was American

Drugs are Trump’s excuse. So, now he’s bombing just for giggles or, more likely, to divert attention from the Epstein scandal?

 

[struth]

Drugs are Trump’s excuse. So, now he’s bombing just for giggles or, more likely, to divert attention from the Epstein scandal?

Maybe declared then enemy combatants and terrorist

You said the president can do that

Epstein? The Dem donor? That Trump jailed? Sounds like you are using him a distraction from your failed whining about Trump

 

[konradv]

Maybe declared then enemy combatants and terrorist

You said the president can do that

Epstein? The Dem donor? That Trump jailed? Sounds like you are using him a distraction from your failed whining about Trump

We’re only talking about this because MAGA is using it to divert attention from the Epstein evidence, hoping the public doesn’t notice they’re too chicken to swear in the representative that would force the reveal.

 

[kyzr]

The WPA is a law; anyone with standing can challenge a law in court.
The President whose Article II powers are restricted by the WPA has standing.
Congress cannot deny the President a power given to him directly by the constitution.

True, but the constitution only gives congress the power to declare war.
The WPA just gives the president 60 days to use the military before congress cuts off the funding.

 

[struth]

We’re only talking about this because MAGA is using it to divert attention from the Epstein evidence, hoping the public doesn’t notice they’re too chicken to swear in the representative that would force the reveal.

You are only talking about Epstein because you want to deflect that your party protected him.

And now you admitted that the president can declare whoever he wants as an enemy combatant…so all your other rants are mere distracts from that fact as well

 

[M14 Shooter]

True, but the constitution only gives congress the power to declare war.
The WPA just gives the president 60 days to use the military before congress cuts off the funding.

Congress can only cut funding with a bill - which the President can veto.

 

[el midgetron]